|
|
Post by tom2506 on Oct 5, 2005 20:48:59 GMT
Why is it that the DLR have had so many different stock delivery's since the 80's, but they have never actually changed the style of the stock?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2005 22:23:23 GMT
Hmmm,
Trying to make people think that they new rolling stock every 6 months?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2005 23:13:05 GMT
Seems sensible to me - if it works, why muck about with it and end up with incompatible trains?
|
|
|
|
Post by russe on Oct 5, 2005 23:14:30 GMT
Why is it that the DLR have had so many different stock delivery's since the 80's, but they have never actually changed the style of the stock? The length of trains was doubled a few years after the DLR opened, and the track mileage has increased significantly. As to the design, maybe the original is sufficiently good that they are happy to stick with it - compatibility is ensured, spares stocking is less costly, and maintenance costs are comparatively lower. Seems a sensible way to run a railway, actually. Russ |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Oct 6, 2005 2:49:33 GMT
Perhaps we could learn a thing or two from their practices  ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 6, 2005 19:47:35 GMT
Perhaps we could learn a thing or two from their practices ;D ;D But you don't see any sign of signals. The current rails look like they've been lifted and turned over. The moving block appears to work. 'Tis witchcraft sir. |
|
|
|
Post by damengineer on Oct 7, 2005 14:04:56 GMT
Perhaps we could learn a thing or two from their practices ;D ;D But you don't see any sign of signals. The current rails look like they've been lifted and turned over. The moving block appears to work. 'Tis witchcraft sir. As a former regular user, I can say that it does work. In fact it just works. Simple really. As for the passenger side of the stock, it is well laid out and not that uncomfortable. It could use airconditioning though... |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Oct 7, 2005 15:35:45 GMT
The first set of cars they had which weren't allowed in tunnels were actually quite different but had a similar shape - they had nasty doors IIRC but I was quite little when it first opened.
The "new" cars have a distinctive side to side oscillation which I don't like - at speed it can become quite severe.
The ATO also has the nasty habit of accelerating quickly and then applying the brakes when they first leave a station.
There is something fantastic though about sitting at the front of a train with no driver. Not that I dislike drivers of course - it's just very novel and fun. The new track alignment at the junction to the Bank tunnels mean they get to quite a speed on the incline. The guard (or CSA I think) always opens the front controls at this point. Not sure why? Anyone else know.
|
|
|
|
Post by russe on Oct 7, 2005 16:39:16 GMT
The guard (or CSA I think) always opens the front controls at this point. Not sure why? Anyone else know. Dunno, but the practice seems to be a regular thing on the DLR when entering a terminus or a 'turnaround' at e.g. Crossharbour. Russ |
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Oct 7, 2005 17:20:03 GMT
The first set of cars they had which weren't allowed in tunnels were actually quite different but had a similar shape - they had nasty doors IIRC but I was quite little when it first opened. Those doors were, I understand, an economy measure, being more akin to Bus doors. The original line and all its equipment was built to a set budget. The figure if I remember correctly, was something like 77 million pounds and it was a case of buying as much railway as possible for that price. |
|
solidbond
Staff Emeritus
'Give me 118 reasons for an Audible Warning on a C Stock'
Posts: 1,215
|
Post by solidbond on Oct 7, 2005 18:23:09 GMT
Those doors were, I understand, an economy measure, being more akin to Bus doors. The original line and all its equipment was built to a set budget. The figure if I remember correctly, was something like 77 million pounds and it was a case of buying as much railway as possible for that price. Yup - 77 million it was. What always made me laugh was that they built the whole DLR (first incarnation) for 77 Million, then spent double the amount, 150 million, just to add one more station - Bank |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Oct 7, 2005 18:55:50 GMT
150 million, just to add one more station - Bank £150 000 000 for one stations? |
|
solidbond
Staff Emeritus
'Give me 118 reasons for an Audible Warning on a C Stock'
Posts: 1,215
|
Post by solidbond on Oct 7, 2005 19:21:32 GMT
Ok - so the cost wasn't all just down to the one station  However, since the original line, as far as possible, used existing viaducts bridges etc, to keep costs down, and as Harsig stated, the trains were built to keep costs down, when the extension to Bank was agreed, it meant new rolling stock, as it would be running in tunnels, lengthening platforms on the existing DLR network, as the new trains would be 2x2 car units, instead of 1x2 car unit, modifying the signalling for the new longer trains as well as the cost of tunnelling and the new station itself |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Oct 7, 2005 20:07:19 GMT
IIRC it only cost £77m in the first place as all the structural work was designed to accomodate the single two car units and no more so adding Bank (and the new trains) meant an enormous amount of new structural work.
Although some thought it appeared shortsighted - the cost reductions at least meant the DLR was built in the first place and in my opinion is a huge contributor to the regeneration of the area.
|
|
|
|
Post by markextube on Oct 11, 2005 20:17:01 GMT
The new stock on order from Bombardier for the new three unit service from Lewisham to Bank has different designed ends and i assume will have different interiors.
All the stock on at present is being refurbished inside and out.
|
|
However, since the original line, as far as possible, used existing viaducts bridges etc, to keep costs down, and as Harsig stated, the trains were built to keep costs down, when the extension to Bank was agreed, it meant new rolling stock, as it would be running in tunnels, lengthening platforms on the existing DLR network, as the new trains would be 2x2 car units, instead of 1x2 car unit, modifying the signalling for the new longer trains as well as the cost of tunnelling and the new station itself
